Page 5 of 5

Re: 94% of votes went against Luxembourg; LBF second thoughts?

Posted: 07 Jun 2012, 04:35
by dondada
Deserter wrote: don't think the omitting of a certain promoter's name is motivated by childishness, rather it's just a misguided response to legal threats.
Erm, 'expensively guided' would be more accurate.

Re: 94% of votes went against Luxembourg; LBF second thoughts?

Posted: 07 Jun 2012, 04:42
by Deserter
dondada wrote:
Deserter wrote: don't think the omitting of a certain promoter's name is motivated by childishness, rather it's just a misguided response to legal threats.
Erm, 'expensively guided' would be more accurate.
:lol: I'll defer to your more intimate knowledge of proceedings :wink:

Re: 94% of votes went against Luxembourg; LBF second thoughts?

Posted: 07 Jun 2012, 04:48
by dondada
Deserter wrote:
dondada wrote:
Deserter wrote: don't think the omitting of a certain promoter's name is motivated by childishness, rather it's just a misguided response to legal threats.
Erm, 'expensively guided' would be more accurate.
:lol: I'll defer to your more intimate knowledge of proceedings :wink:
You're right though, it would no doubt have little material effect but it was done to show that the forum was addressing concerns (identification and all that).

Re: 94% of votes went against Luxembourg; LBF second thoughts?

Posted: 07 Jun 2012, 05:40
by Chambers2
How long was it between the Chisora-Vitali fight and the BBBC's hearing? Why couldn't the BBBC come up with a definite length for the Chisora/Haye ban in that time? This act of incompetence/indecisiveness is what has left British Boxing in the state it is, which looks to become inevitably fractioned as neither side will back down

Re: 94% of votes went against Luxembourg; LBF second thoughts?

Posted: 07 Jun 2012, 06:23
by leforge
I not going to comment on all whats going on behind the scenes and the reason this fight happening. I am going to for my sins a mate got me a ticket must be mad!

My question is why did the board not act when a promotor company went under owing a high profile boxer?

Re: 94% of votes went against Luxembourg; LBF second thoughts?

Posted: 07 Jun 2012, 09:30
by Glyn Leach
Fair enough Ian, I do see where you're coming from. As I wrote, hopefully all this can result in something positive, but for that to happen both sides will need to be prepared to give ground. I hope they're big enough and sensible enough to do that, but y'know...

Re: 94% of votes went against Luxembourg; LBF second thoughts?

Posted: 07 Jun 2012, 10:20
by dondada
Glyn Leach wrote:Fair enough Ian, I do see where you're coming from. As I wrote, hopefully all this can result in something positive, but for that to happen both sides will need to be prepared to give ground. I hope they're big enough and sensible enough to do that, but y'know...
Yes, for sure. Show will go ahead whatever, Board realises they need really significant change. If the latter doesn't happen after this, they've only got themselves to blame.

Re: 94% of votes went against Luxembourg; LBF second thoughts?

Posted: 07 Jun 2012, 21:41
by Khaosai-Galaxy
Adamj1987 wrote:effing brillient, kicking said promoter into touch i belive

Yeah! Great!

A potentially great fight cant go ahead because of a technicality!!!

This is why i started watching boxing in the 1st place!!!